Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Kachold

Lisa Kachold

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Entirely non-notable person, in no way meets notability or biography minimum requirements. Don't be fooled by the long list of references in this article. They seem to all fit into two categories: 1) References that do not mention this person at all and 2) Curriculum Vitae's created by this person themselves, usually hosted on websites of organizations she belongs to. There appears to be zero independent sources about this person. Checking Google gives nothing but CVs and resumes and one sentance mentions, things like attended such-and-such a confernece, etc. Google News search turns up squadoosh as well. I see nothing here that meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This appears to meet CSD A7 -Marcusmax(speak) 02:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the nominator, I would disagree with that assessment. A7 is exclusively for articles which make no claims of importance or notability. This article certainly claims notability as "one of the first Internet women in engineering and computer science." Whether such claims are verifiable or notable in themselves is debatable, which is why we have the debate. I am looking to see this deleted, but no use doing so out-of-process. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sometimes I get a bit carried away, I just can't handle when fake articles exist to look like real ones. Although you are right it does make a statment of notability. -Marcusmax(speak) 12:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, probably not speedy, but dern close. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move/rename/merge Content to both Obnosis; add Category:Internet_properties_established_in_1996 and merge bio to User space. Now that Wikipedia Administrators know that User:Lisa Kachold is not a Sockpuppet they will not delete the User:Lisa Kachold. Referencing Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia seek inclusionism. If failure for article on it's own wins community WP:consensus, (with all [attacks] ignored and bias excluded, move/merge bio portion of page to User:LisaKachold. Suggest development of reliable sources in next four days by community page submitters LinuxChix. (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet Speedy Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. (Suspected Scientology based) IP DoS flooding to the hosting servers upon which Obnosis.com is served, as well as flooding of IP of the originating article editor, interferes with innocent users. Page, relocated to User:Lisa Kachold as appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.119.178 (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to User:LisaKachold Seems to fit as a user page, but unless some notability can be demonstrated, it's a stretch as a separate article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user in question is User:LisaKachold without the space. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it. We've got deletes and keeps coming from the identical IP address. There's something fishy going on here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Talk:Lisa Kachold more than one user often edit from same proxy IP address, which under Wikipedia rules alone does not equate to puppetry. However, logging in protects from IP farming/flooding and Administrators might kindly educate these users to do so, rather than block without adequate proof? The issue of WP:COI and puppetry was already addressed. Lisakachold (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Note is served via existing precedence of other bio pages of women, pages of Anonymous_(Group), and biographies in general. On this Deletion discussion, nominator Jayron32 must state HOW contribution Lisa Kachold fails to meet notability or biography, rather than simply stating an opinion. Per Alternatives to deletion the tag: {{verify}} to flag (for lack of verifiability) would certainly precede any deletion nomination. Jayron32, nominator appears to confuse, and use the failure of verifiability with WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. Deletion of content appropriate for a User:Page, especially for a previously deleted user (without adequate proof of sockpuppetry) during controversy and a possible Scientology based edit war of page submissions (obnosis) fails to meet with good faith assumptions and hint at bias. Optimally, Lisa Kachold page could happily be designated via WP:RM to User:Lisa Kachold should {verify} attempts from community editing/submitting content fail to meet Wikipedia inclusion standards. Overuse of Nomination for Deletion as iron handed censor swipes from Wikipedia Administrators/Editors is lampooned on external sites. Also, once a page is retained/deleted after Nomination for Deletion, it cannot be submitted/nominated again; so censorship is created via failing to allow for content to meet minimum requirements built into Wikipedia policy and process. This is a second unregistered Wiki User from the same IP, not a WP:Sock.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.119.178 (talk • contribs)
Your first sentence doesn't make sense anonymous user. The existing precendence is that articles need to be verifiable and meet inclusion criteria. The fact other articles do has no bearing on this one. Also, the nominator did provide a reason. He said it was unverifiable through independent sources. The claim "Also, once a page is retained/deleted after Nomination for Deletion, it cannot be submitted/nominated again" is patently false. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically they're posing a "prove it's not" argument, which doesn't hold water. The policy is, "prove it is." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, and no amount of wikilawyering will make it so. Mayalld (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete extraordinarily non-notable individual, complete with every single detail of an utterly unremarkable IT career. Given the tone and silliness of it all, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this were a subtle attack page by someone trying to make Lisa look ridiculous and vain. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Completely and utterly notable, especially for obnosis.com after Alt.religion.scientology UseNet, CUD, and Anonymous_(Group) history. Completely notable woman for Computer_Security, current FOSS contributions. Wikipedia:Notability_(people) is even served with existing references; other pages exist with less Wikipedia:Verifiability exist. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons looks good too. Notability for the domain name alone exists, however the subject matter might better be moved to Category:Internet_properties_established_in_1996. Mass nominations for deletion are poor community. As for Alternatives to deletion, a MOVE or MERGE is recommended to be considered first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hear0Evil (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.
Comment As various users interested in this article keep referring to the notability of other articles in reference to this one, I'd encourage him/her/them to read WP:OTHERSTUFF as to why we don't care about the other articles in relation to this one. Katr67 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Getting _very_ close to an A7 - does the use of the word "infamous" count as an assertion of notability, because that's about all that's keeping it from there? Strong fail of WP:N in any case. Tevildo (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, almost certainly not a speedy but quite definitely a non notable individual.--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 21:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Lisa Kachold's user page (for now), where it can do no harm. I might not be around much, so if by the end of this discussion we have more verifiable info on what this person has done re:Scientology for instance, please assume my opinion switches to KEEP.--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC) So no: off-site canvassing does not particularly sway me <strict frown> ; but verifiable data just might. :-) [reply]